Beverly Hillbillies

Someone left this comment on the blog earlier today :

The author states but doesn’t prove that “The reality is that there is no legitimate evidence extreme weather is increasing or sea level rise is accelerating.” His graph (% day above 90F) doesn’t show the data for % day above 95F or 105F, or something else. What if the % of day above 95F would show an upward trend? His example is not enough to convince me that he hasn’t engaged in cherry picking.

February 22, 2019 at 11:16 pm

While possible mathematically, it is difficult to imagine how (in the real world) you could have fewer 90 degree days, and more 95 degree days. In fact, the same downwards trend is seen for 80, 85, 90, 95, 100 and 105 degree days.



The US used to be much hotter and drier, which was why millions of people fled the Great Plains and moved to California during the 1930s. At one time, California was a great place to live.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Beverly Hillbillies

  1. spike55 says:

    You have posted those 95 and 100 graphs several times before.

    The guy obviously doesn’t understand maths and climate very well .

    I suggest he downloads your software , learn how to use it and find out for himself. !!

    • rah says:

      Expect a lot of new people here that didn’t even know about Tony or this blog a few days ago to come here asking many questions that have been answered before because of the Scott Adams challenge. A lot of them may actually be looking for answers on the climate change battles for the first time. They may be entertaining the idea that what they’ve been fed in the general press about “climate change” is bunkum for the very first time and seeking answers. I would suggest it would be best for those of us regulars which sometimes can be caustic in our replies to can it for a time and be indulgent when a person politely asks questions we know have been answered multiple before on this blog. There are plenty new real A-holes that will come here also and who they are will become obvious very quickly and we can vent our spleens on them.

      • GW Smith says:

        Very good. I agree.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Even as one who doesn’t suffer fools easily I agree with you, RAH. Scott Adams is sending Tony a lot of new readers and some will putz around for a while defending their “received faith” because they were told they are on the side of science.

        Let’s see if Jason can get through to this particular gentleman.

    • arn says:

      The problem is not his a little bit bizarre arguement(a sharp decline in 90f days while those few get so much hotter that they increase the days of 95/105f days),
      but that Remi d. has no problems ignoring 30+years of BS AGW predictions but than uses such a hilarious scenario.
      His critical thinking is so biased and one sided.
      If he’d be able to focus just 10% of it and his emotions towards AGW his worldview would fall apart.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey spike55! “I suggest he downloads your software , learn how to use it and find out for himself. !!”

      Great suggestion! For any CAGW supporters reading this, just in case you don’t know what spike is talking about, Tony has written and made freely available a program (open source for any programmers who wish to check it for integrity) that allows you to take the complete temperature data set for the US and do your own analysis of climate trends. The data set is available online. See here for details:

      Also, if you are new to his work, please check some of the links he has posted on the top header of his blog. You will probably find the great majority of your questions already addressed there. In my opinion, Tony is a genius and a bulldog when it comes to digging out the truth.

      (The more determined climate change enthusiasts may also want to check E.M. Smith’s older work at )

    • Menicholas says:

      The most glaringly obvious takeaway from someone who, upon seeing clear evidence that something he/she has been led to believe may not in fact be true, has as a reaction to invent some absurd scenario in which awful things are nontheless taking place, is that these are people who do not want to find out the End Of The World is cancelled.
      The scream and yell about how awful things are coming, and it will be really bad and oh boy will we all be sorry, and why aren’t we all panicking.
      But the only things that makes them more upset than they seem to be about doomsday being nigh, is being presented with even the suggestion, let alone direct and strong evidence, that they are wrong, and awful things are not imminent.
      But it would be wrong to think for even a second that these people live their lives in a state of panic and misery. No way. That is only their spiel when the subject arises. At home they are relaxed and partying it up with their homeys, never actually worrying about.
      Let alone changing even one single thing in their behavior or energy footprint.
      Except maybe buy a Prius.
      Some may have solar panels on their roof, but I suspect even those that look into it with the idea of doing so blanche and drop the idea upon finding out that getting panels involves an initial upfront investment which is equivalent to paying your electric bill for the next 15+ years in advance.
      Talk is cheap, and I have seen no evidence warmistas have any inclination to do more than talk and back proposals that mostly take money from someone else.

  2. John Edmondson says:

    Unreal. I bet the >150degree days trend is pretty flat though.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      I don’t think you will get many takers on that bet! Although with today education system some younger folks might ask F or C.

  3. Steven Fraser says:

    Awesome charts, Tony!

  4. rah says:

    California would still be a great place to live if not for the people.

  5. Russell Palin says:

    Is there any reason why these charts and the officially collated temperature records can not be used to take the CO2 and climate change/warming issue to the courts in the USA?
    I bet crowd funding would go through the roof.
    I would love to see a federal enquiry find the real truth, I believe the truth is right here on this blog in the graphs charts and other official information quoted on it.
    Newspaper cuttings and newsreels can not wipe out their valuable historical data either…

    Best wishes from a concerned English man.

    • rah says:

      I’m no lawyer but my understanding is that to bring suit in the US one has to be deemed to have “standing” and a requirement to gain “standing” is a requirement to show that one has suffered some kind of damage from the lies.

      • Russell Palin says:

        How much damage to the US economy and employment has climate change alarmism done.
        Shutting down industry when all that was needed was more investment on cleaner ways of using fossil fuel.

  6. RW says:

    Tony. Finish the book! Fill it with great graphs like these.

    Looking forward to your systematic dissection of the adjustments done by NOAA and GISS.

  7. R Shearer says:

    I don’t buy the premise that a shot gun could cause crude oil to begin flowing from the ground like that. I mean, how deep is the penetration of the gun’s shot (slug, pellets or whatever). Other than that, one of my favorite shows as a child and one of the first that I remember.

    “Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale…”

    • Jason Calley says:

      “I don’t buy the premise that a shot gun could cause crude oil to begin flowing from the ground like that.”

      I am sceptical as well, but for a different reason. I don’t think a mountain man from Tennessee would ever miss his target when “shootin’ at some food”. :)

    • DCA says:

      I believe you mean “Come ‘n’ listen to my story ’bout a man named Jed …”

      “Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale…” is the Gilligan’s Island theme.

      But more importantly, why on earth do we retain sludge like this in our brains when there are far more useful things to remember?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      “I don’t buy the premise that a shot gun could cause crude oil to begin flowing from the ground like that.”

      Think again. Some religions believe that guns and crude oil are possessed be the same evil spirit. They seem inanimate to mechanistic 19th century science but Progressive thought has evolved since then.

      Guns act out their evil intentions every day and oil is trying to kill us all. They could be in communion with each other. Relying on the laws of traditional physics may be shortsighted.

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      I don’t know where in the Ozarks Jed Clampett’s swamp was, wherein was the oil. However, I was raised about 20 miles from Oil Creek, in Pennsylvania. Along the Creek, oil seeped out of the rock layers, thus the name. One did not need a shotgun to find it. Jed may be the one that started the long history of “fracking” – much improved since 1962.
      You can read about Oil Creek here:

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey John! You have just taught me something! I thought they had moved from Tennessee, not the Ozarks. A little search gives me this:

        “In the original pilot episode, “The Hillbillies of Beverly Hill”s, the narrator states as the cast is just entering the gate of the mansion. “Let’s take them back to their home in the Ozarks and see how this whole thing got started”. In a later episode it is mentioned that Granny is from Tennessee. Her character was born in Tennessee and moved to the Ozarks (probably Missouri, since that is where Paul Henning (I), the show’s creator, was from).”

        Of course Little Abner was from the Ozarks as well, and I think Ma and Pa Kettle were also.

  8. Pathway says:

    In the mean time from the LA Times:
    “Communities including Malibu, West Hollywood, Pasadena and Northridge got hit with a bit of snow Thursday. But very little of it was sicking to the ground. First time since 1962”

  9. dp says:

    I just ran the numbers and every time I try it, 95 and 105 are greater than 90. In fact, to state the obvious, all numbers greater than 90 are greater than 90 regardless of what is being counted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *